Was Thebes Necessary? Contingency in Spatial Modeling

  • Evans T
  • Rivers R
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

When data is poor we resort to theory modelling. This is a two-step process. We have first to identify the appropriate type of model for the system under consideration and then to tailor it to the specifics of the case. To understand settlement formation, which is the concern of this paper, this not only involves choosing input parameter values such as site separations but also input functions which characterises the ease of travel between sites. Although the generic behaviour of the model is understood, the details are not. Different choices will necessarily lead to different outputs (for identical inputs). We can only proceed if choices that are "close" give outcomes are similar. Where there are local differences it suggests that there was no compelling reason for one outcome rather than the other. If these differences are important for the historic record we may interpret this as sensitivity to contingency. We re-examine the rise of Greek city states as first formulated by Rihll and Wilson in 1979, initially using the same "retail" gravity model. We suggest that, whereas cities like Athens owe their position to a combination of geography and proximity to other sites, the rise of Thebes is the most contingent, whose success reflects social forces outside the grasp of simple network modelling.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Evans, T. S., & Rivers, R. J. (2017). Was Thebes Necessary? Contingency in Spatial Modeling. Frontiers in Digital Humanities, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdigh.2017.00008

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free